Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!

I am trying to design into our new dedicated home theater, a set of motorized drapes that will retract in front of a Stewart Lucas Deluxe 16x9 studiotek 130 screen which we have purchased but do not yet have. One dimension that I did not note in the web brochure was the mounting depth necessary for a curtain to clear not just the screen but the border as well. I guess I am assuming that the curtain should not brush back and forth across the screen or border. I somehow manage to measure everything but this dimension when I visit a friends home or see it in a showroom. Please let me know the mounted depth of the screen and border.

I'll share my experience comparing firehawk to high power. I have a similar setup for projector mounting location, screen size, and viewing distance. Currently I'm just using blackout cloth, and am hard pressed to justify the marginal improvement I'll see in dark viewing for the expense. However, I find I'm doing more and more viewing with ambient light. So I ordered samples from Da-Lite and Stewart to check them out. I suggest you do the same (they were free).

In my evaluation I decided on the Firehawk. Although the high power does provide a higher gain image than other screens with a ceiling mount, it's depressing to stand up and see the image get much brighter and seemingly more vibrant. I think I would end up wanting to stand during movies! The firehawk provided the best picture in my actual viewing area. I also found it shed light better in ambient situations. The relative contrast between black and white were more profound to me, especially compared to the high power OUTSIDE of it's sweet spot.

Of all the materials I tested from Stewart and Da-lite only the high power and the firehawk were compelling enough of a difference from black out cloth for me to consider. FWIW the black out cloth was indistinguishable from matt white screen material. I hung both samples on my screen for a while just to see different situations. With lights on, I was always impressed with the firewhawk.

When it comes down to it though, you'll get used to what you have and until you see something better you won't really know what you're missing. With the high-power you'll always see what you're missing every time you stand up. That would drive me crazy! You may be different. Good Luck.

MM

mtmason: This post of yours is from quite a while ago, but I'm just working my way through all these screen posts and had a question (if you are still reading these threads!). Since I can mount my pj either 'high' (i.e., on the ceiling) or 'low' (on a stand just behind the sitting area and less than a foot above our heads), I can avoid some of the bad features you noted about the HP (because it is retro-reflective, while the FH is angular-reflective). Thus with the ph mounted optimally for both screens--high for the FH and low for the HP--how do you think your comparison would come out? Tx, Bill

Thank you very much for the order. The Luxus Deluxe, Snap screen with e-z mount brackets, will stand 1 7/8" off the wall. Is that what you have ordered?

Like many others here, I'm leaning strongly toward the Firehawk for the screen in the FP set-up I'm planning. I.e., like you, my room is not a dedicated, light-controlled one, though it is usually relatively dark: no direct sunlight even in daytime, just some filtered light through two shuttered windows. The FH sounds ideal.

Just a question: you mentioned that it's best to have as long a throw for the pj as possible. I'm looking at the new Optoma HD81 that will come out later this year, and its throw is limited to 2.2 (screen width), and also my room limits the throw to 16 ft (am looking at a 110" diag screen, so throw would be ~ 2.0, almost as long as the pj allows). The question is, will this throw be long enough to avoid the hotspotting tendency of the FH? This seems to be the only problem of concern, everything else seems to be outstanding. (It will be ceiling mounted, actually on a shelf high on the back wall, very close to the 8.3 ft ceiling.)

If you have 2:1 that's great, we like to see 1.5:1 or longer, and have bunches of very happy customers at 1.5:1. As far as the mounting goes, help yourself a bit by using a ladder to support your projector temporarily, at the planned height of the shelf. You want the projector to be able to fill the screen without using any anti-keystoning correction.

If you have 2:1 that's great, we like to see 1.5:1 or longer, and have bunches of very happy customers at 1.5:1. As far as the mounting goes, help yourself a bit by using a ladder to support your projector temporarily, at the planned height of the shelf. You want the projector to be able to fill the screen without using any anti-keystoning correction.

Thank you for considering Stewart Filmscreen!

Thanks for the quick reply! Glad to hear that a 2.0 throw works well. The HD81 has a fixed 27% (of height) offset; i.e., for a 110" diag screen, this means the lens of the pj needs to be ~ 15" above the top of the screen. So with the screen mounted so that eye level (38") is ~ 1/3 of the screen, the pj would be ~ 7.5 ft above the floor.

Is there an optimum height for the pj to be mounted with the FH? E.g., what would this be with my eyes at 38" above the floor, sitting ~12 ftt from the screen, with the center of the screen ~ 47" above the floor, and the pj ~ 16 feet from the screen?

I asked this question earlier, but you may have missed it. I did get a useful reply from Nathan.

I'm trying to decide between a Firehawk and Grayhawk screen. It will be going into a family room with some ambient light issues. It will need to be a pull-down/motorised screen because of no wall space. I'm looking at either a 63" or 71" wide screen (16:9 format). Seating will be about 10.5' to 11' from the screen. The projector will be at most 11' to 12' from the screen. (From the room's arrangement it would be better to have the projector closer, at say 7' to 8' from the screen but I think that will introduce too many technical problems.)

I'm wondering what would be your recommendation between the two screens in this situation? As the seating is fairly close to the screen I'm concerned about both hotspotting problems and brightness falling off for those sitting to the side of the screen. I also wonder about the "sparklies" some mention in regards to the Firehawk.

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Richard

PS I'm in Brisbane Australia and all though most dealers will happily supply me with a Stewart screen, only one has ever had one on display and it was the StudioTek 130. None of the dealers here seem to be able to provide concrete advice.

Thank you very much for the order. The Luxus Deluxe, Snap screen with e-z mount brackets, will stand 1 7/8" off the wall. Is that what you have ordered?

Thanks Mark for the information. Wow, that's shallower than I imagined. I purchased the Luxus Deluxe, Snap screen along with a Sony VPL-VW100 from Dave at Gramophone in Columbia, MD.

The 15 x 18 room will be completely light controlled down to pitch black at high noon if so desired but this raises another question that keeps coming to mind. I know we need to have total control over the ambient light in the room with the Studiotek 130 surface, but how much ambient light can I use for things like foot lighting, sconces, lighted poster frames, fiber optic stars, etc. before the picture starts to wash out?

I know trial and error could ultimately answer this question, but I do not want to order the kinds of things that add to the overall light level only to find out that they do more harm to the picture quality than good to the aesthetics. Is there a rule of thumb I can use when adding ambient light to the room?

"Is there an optimum height for the pj to be mounted with the FH? E.g., what would this be with my eyes at 38" above the floor, sitting ~12 ftt from the screen, with the center of the screen ~ 47" above the floor, and the pj ~ 16 feet from the screen? "
The Firehawk is an angular reflective surface, somewhat analogous to a billiard table bumper, but picture the bouncing ball being divided into a bunch of smaller balls, but bouncing in a defined distribution, centered on the probable bounce path of the originating impact. This behaviour is uniform in vertical or horizontal performance. So light hitting the surface, exits at a complementary symetrical angle, but diffused and distributed. So an extreme example: Projector on the floor, a large amount of light would be directed upward in a complementary angle, toward the ceiling. A high ceiling mount would direct light down below toward the floor. We always have to look at the recommended lens geometry of a particular projector, as clearly illustrated by the previous data on the upcoming Optoma projector. When you have a flexible lens with vertical offset capablilty, a good way to go is to align the lens with a perpendicular horizontal line, originating at the upper edge of the screen. Many projectors are designed to do exactly that. So optimum for Firehawk is always above the screen surface. The further away you can place the projector, then the distribution of incident angles is tightned. This results in better center-to-edge uniformity, and a wider acceptable viewing angle.

Richard,
In Australia, Mr. Paul Kutcher very ably represents us, and can help you view products in use.

On the fabric selection, the presence of ambient light, other than just re-reflected light would lead me more toward Firehawk, however, you should really use the longer throw option. The Grayhawk would be plenty bright, and would have wider viewing cone, better white field uniformity, but you must be more dedicated to the control of ambient light.

The threat of 'sparklies' is a non issue. We re-formulated Firehawk a little over a year ago, specifically to eliminate sparklies, and to slightly reduce gain, and widen the viewing cone.

JKMW,
The light-producing aesthetic elements you describe, if poorly placed, would harm contrast for any screen. What I have seen in the field, is people using lighting control systems, automated dimmers, which bring the elements down when the projection begins. If you don't want that sort of complexity, use creative placement and manual dimmers instead. Provided you use a surface with the ability to work around some lighting, if you avoid the rear wall, keep that pretty dark, and avoid adjacent areas of the perpendicular walls, you can use the elements. The adjacent perpendicular walls are a great place for deep colored, acoustical treatments. That will help your video and audio. The Studiotek surface will really look much better if you eliminate all of the decorative element lighting while viewing is underway. There will be enough room illumination from the screen alone, to allow people to appreciate where they are, and usually to allow safe ingress and egress, unless it is a really dark scene.

When you have a flexible lens with vertical offset capablilty, a good way to go is to align the lens with a perpendicular horizontal line, originating at the upper edge of the screen. Many projectors are designed to do exactly that. So optimum for Firehawk is always above the screen surface. The further away you can place the projector, then the distribution of incident angles is tightned. This results in better center-to-edge uniformity, and a wider acceptable viewing angle.

Mark, you are doing a heroic job in dealing with all these queries; I certainly appreciate it, as I'm sure the others do. (And I think you are also doing well for your company--the old adage of "doing well while also doing good"!)

I do understand the angular-reflective idea well. For example, if I do the calculation for the following scenario: eye level = 38", center of screen = 47", eye to screen = 12 ft, pj lens to screen = 16 ft, then for the light from the pj to hit the screen center and bounch straight to my eye leads to the pj ideally being at ~5 ft above the floor (9" x (16/12) = 12" above the screen center). But this is rather low; e.g., the top of the screen will be at ~78" = 6.5 ft. But I gather from your comments that there is considerable diffussion of the light from my simple 'ray analysis', so that having the pj a foot or so above this 'ideal' position is fine; e.g., so that locating the pj at ~ the height of the top of the screen is a good rule of thumb.

But I do understand that mounting the pj too close to eye level is NOT a good idea for the FH (as it is for retro-reflective screens, such as the Dalite HP or Optoma Graywolf). Is that still the recommendation?

Mounting at eye level is problematic geometrically for Front Projection, but happens in R.P. apps. where the optics are frequently centered on the screen. I suppose you could put the projector in front of you, it's done with CRT etc. But if you can find a sweet and accessible higher angle, the angular reflective surface can deliver the light right to you optimally..Lengthening the throw, makes this easier, creating a wider, (taller), sweet spot.

is 123" diagonal and firehawk too big at 13.5' away when viewing 720p or DVD based material? I hope not, because I just ordered the screen.

Sounds great to me: you are right at the THX recommended ratio of viewing distance to screen diagonal (1.3). Just hope your pj is bright enough; you'll need 540 Lumens (when calibrated for video) to achieve 15 ftL.

Sounds great to me: you are right at the THX recommended ratio of viewing distance to screen diagonal (1.3). Just hope your pj is bright enough; you'll need 540 Lumens (when calibrated for video) to achieve 15 ftL.

that's what I thought. Some people keep making me re-calculate and second guess myself. I was going to go with the Optoma HD72 and pair it with my 123" firehawk, but I found that the offset won't work. Next choice was the Optoma H78 but it was too dim. Thus, I'm now at the Samsung HP-H710AE and from what I've been reading, after cal it is putting out enough lumens so I'm 90% sure this is the projector for me. If anyone feels otherwise, please speak up and provide some data to back it up (not just "I think..." as it drives me insane with second guessing hahaa).

Thanks millerwill for the confirmation on the THX viewing as that was what I was going by. My thinking was that I should be planning ahead for when 1080p becomes affordable too. Nothing worse than having to go back and re-buy another screen. I'm in the camp of do it right the first time.

that's what I thought. Some people keep making me re-calculate and second guess myself. I was going to go with the Optoma HD72 and pair it with my 123" firehawk, but I found that the offset won't work. Next choice was the Optoma H78 but it was too dim. Thus, I'm now at the Samsung HP-H710AE and from what I've been reading, after cal it is putting out enough lumens so I'm 90% sure this is the projector for me. If anyone feels otherwise, please speak up and provide some data to back it up (not just "I think..." as it drives me insane with second guessing hahaa).

Thanks millerwill for the confirmation on the THX viewing as that was what I was going by. My thinking was that I should be planning ahead for when 1080p becomes affordable too. Nothing worse than having to go back and re-buy another screen. I'm in the camp of do it right the first time.

The Sam 170 pj has been getting great reviews. Be sure to read its review in projectorcentral.com, where they say that when properly calibrated for video it produces 465 Lumens; this should be sufficient for your size screen, but just barely.

When you have a flexible lens with vertical offset capablilty, a good way to go is to align the lens with a perpendicular horizontal line, originating at the upper edge of the screen. Many projectors are designed to do exactly that. So optimum for Firehawk is always above the screen surface. The further away you can place the projector, then the distribution of incident angles is tightned. This results in better center-to-edge uniformity, and a wider acceptable viewing angle.

Mark,

I hope my personal note of thanks for your considered responses to my questions doesn't seem redundant especially as it is from me and not someone else speaking for me . This entire Home Theater design and implementation thing is Truly a labor of love and I really appreciate all the help I have received and can get especially from people like you, the Experts.

I wanted to keep this brief but having read your comments about the angular reflectivity of the FH in recent posts, I began wondering whether this was an issue with the ST in a dark room. I began my projector installation analysis by trying to achieve a recommended vertical viewing angle of 15 degrees for the front row, (measured as the angle of the perpendicular horizontal viewing height, (I used 39") to the top of the screen). I wound up with a 17.18 degree vertical viewing angle at 11' 3" back from the screen. The Sony VPL-VW100 has plenty of vertical offset capability. Using the Sony recommended ceiling mount, I find I am well within the maximum offset when attached to a 1" thick mounting board on my 8' ceiling. This puts the center of the lens 11 7/16" down from the ceiling and roughly 3.75" above the top edge of the screen. This distance above the screen can of course be decreased by raising the screen, (and increasing the viewing angle), or lowering the projector, (raising headroom concerns for the second row viewers). Is the angular reflection of light from the projector a factor I should take into account with the Studiotek 130?

Thank you again for all your help. You have already saved us $hundreds in lighting effects we never really needed!

I currently have a Stewart Grayhawk Luxus Screenwall fixed screen SN092H, 80W x 45H. (3 years old). My projector is a Sanyo PLV60HT LCD with a 1200 ANSI Lumen output and a 700:1 contrast ratio. The projector is ceiling mounted with the lens approximately 14 feet from the screen.

The installation is in a basement HT/family room with 2 small windows and the lighting in the room can be easily controlled for viewing. Overhead lights are usually off when viewing DVD and lights behind the seating position are often on during TV viewing. The room has an acoustic ceiling (white) and the walls are a beige color. (Sherwin Williams Dhurrie Beige to be exact). Color scheme will not be changed.

I have been very happy with the results, but am considering some acoustical changes to the room by going with in-wall front 3 speakers versus floor standing and will thus need a microperf style screen.

First, can replacement screen material, without the frame be ordered? Is there any trade-in allowance for previous customers? What would be recommended? Another Grayhawk (or Grayhawk RS) or would a Firehawk G2 be more appropriate?

Thanks,
Mike

"A banker: the person who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining and wants it back the minute it rains" - Mark Twain

Mounting at eye level is problematic geometrically for Front Projection, but happens in R.P. apps. where the optics are frequently centered on the screen. I suppose you could put the projector in front of you, it's done with CRT etc. But if you can find a sweet and accessible higher angle, the angular reflective surface can deliver the light right to you optimally..Lengthening the throw, makes this easier, creating a wider, (taller), sweet spot.

Mark,

Quick question. I own a Firehawk 16:9, 100" dia. The top of the screen is 7' high and our projector lens is 15' from screen and 6' high. Our seating is 13' from screen and the room is only 13' wide so horizontal is a non issue. From reading your above post would there be any advantage to me moving the projector higher on the back wall? It's on an adjustable shelf so it wouldn't be too much work if there is some benefit, but I don't want to spend the time if it's negligible.

Thanks in advance for your help and, not brown-nosing, but I think the Firehawk is a GREAT screen. This is my third Stewart screen and I'd purchase again in a heartbeat.

I took some time off last week and am responding a bit late, sorry, but here goes...

Mark,
Thanks for the nice comments. The Studiotek should easily accomodate the small amount of deviation from perfect vertical angle. It is pretty forgiving, has a wide viewing cone, and exemplary resistance to color shift. How high above finished floor is bottom of the image area?

Mike,
The PLV-60 has served you well I'll wager. We've had one here for years. We will tilt the perf pattern at about 24 degrees at that size to minimize moire artifact. Yes we do make "Screen Only" sales, we have the data from your original purchase. We do not take trade in screens, but folks do often appreciate an opportunity to purchase a well cared for, used screen, even without a frame. You could put up an ad here on AVS or at Videogon, and test the waters. Firehawk is appreciated by many folks who own the PLV series projectors. They throw a lot of light, but the contrast ratio is not the major selling point for that platform.

Shovven,
Firehawk G-2 is an internal upgrade which we did not feel was "monumental" enough to promote. The information has gotten around and the substance of the change is a difference in the partical size distribution in one of the pigments. This change was done to eliminate "star" artifacts, when folks would see a brilliant tiny mirror within the image, and to widen the veiwing cone a little bit, by reducing the gain. This also reduces hot-spot. Hot-spot with Firehawk is very much tied to applied throw distance, and with both versions of the fabric, we recommend 1.5 :1 or longer throw distances. So yes, G2 is "better" in terms of hot-spot, but still less appropriate for short-throw installations, than Studiotek, Snomatte, or Grayhawk or Graymatte.

ScottyB,
It would be interesting to do, but probably close to negligible. If I understand you correctly, the raised position would create symmetry in the angle of incidence, versus the vertical viewing angle? I like the sound of what you have right now, and if the elevation of the projector, forces you to use anti-keystoning correction, stay away from that. Thank you for the kind words, and we are honored to be of service!

Mark,
Thanks for the nice comments. The Studiotek should easily accomodate the small amount of deviation from perfect vertical angle. It is pretty forgiving, has a wide viewing cone, and exemplary resistance to color shift. How high above finished floor is bottom of the image area?

Mark,

Hope your vacation was energizing!

In direct answer to your question, the image area is 31 3/4" off the floor. But if I may back up to something you wrote referring to a perfect viewing angle. Is this in reference to what the Studiotek 'likes' as in the correct angle of reflectivity for the Studioteks specific screen surface? Please forgive me if it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse, (what's the origin of that expression? Must endeavor to be more politically correct), but if necessary, I can move the center of the pj lens down, closer to the top of the image area. I am actually in the process of mounting the pj right now and if I need to, now is my best time to make adjustments.

The Studiotek surface consists of small planar particles distributed at random angles, this optical coating is applied to a mostly Lambertian substrate. The net effect is a surface with mostly Lambertian behavior, but with a slight bias away from the Lambertian hemispherical distribution characteristic. (quick review, Lambertian surfaces take incoming light and reflect the light in a diffuse manner, so that though projected light arriving can be collimated and highly directional, light exiting the surface is distributed into an even hemispheric assortment of energy, at proportionally distributed reduced intensity).

Back to the angled particles. So light which is not diffused hemi spherically, is partially reflected in a distribution, centered on a complementary angle.(quick review for newbies, complementary angles added together have a sum of 90 degrees). To make it even more complicated, the individual angled particles are coated with a diffusing pigment. Some light is absorbed as well.

So to find out the probable path of light hitting the angled surfaces on the screen fabric at an angle, (read slowly, sorry), you ray-trace the light back to the source, (lens), find that angle, then subtract that angle from 90, there is the bias line denoting the center of the distribution destinations of that light, because our optical coating is applied at many angles, and just part of the light hits the angled particles. Most of the light is diffused. This preserves white field uniformity. The fabric is a blend of diffusion and angular reflectivity. It is actually much more a diffusing surface than a "gain" surface.

Let's go a little further. So as the gain value of a given angular reflective surface increases, usually, a higher proportion of the light is directed angularly, and less is diffused in the Lambertian model. It gets fairly complex, but it is consistent. Silver screen fabrics ordinarily operate at the opposite extreme of Studiotek, in that they do more angular reflecting and much less Lambertian diffusing.

For you Mark, choosing Studiotek, the partial angular reflectivity is not something you need to dwell upon. It is more of a consideration for users of Firehawk and other competing products with a greater proportion of angular reflectivity behavior.

The Studiotek surface consists of small planar particles distributed at random angles, this optical coating is applied to a mostly Lambertian substrate. The net effect is a surface with mostly Lambertian behavior, but with a slight bias away from the Lambertian hemispherical distribution characteristic. (quick review, Lambertian surfaces take incoming light and reflect the light in a diffuse manner, so that though projected light arriving can be collimated and highly directional, light exiting the surface is distributed into an even hemispheric assortment of energy, at proportionally distributed reduced intensity).

Back to the angled particles. So light which is not diffused hemi spherically, is partially reflected in a distribution, centered on a complementary angle.(quick review for newbies, complementary angles added together have a sum of 90 degrees). To make it even more complicated, the individual angled particles are coated with a diffusing pigment. Some light is absorbed as well.

So to find out the probable path of light hitting the angled surfaces on the screen fabric at an angle, (read slowly, sorry), you ray-trace the light back to the source, (lens), find that angle, then subtract that angle from 90, there is the bias line denoting the center of the distribution destinations of that light, because our optical coating is applied at many angles, and just part of the light hits the angled particles. Most of the light is diffused. This preserves white field uniformity. The fabric is a blend of diffusion and angular reflectivity. It is actually much more a diffusing surface than a "gain" surface.

Let's go a little further. So as the gain value of a given angular reflective surface increases, usually, a higher proportion of the light is directed angularly, and less is diffused in the Lambertian model. It gets fairly complex, but it is consistent. Silver screen fabrics ordinarily operate at the opposite extreme of Studiotek, in that they do more angular reflecting and much less Lambertian diffusing.

For you Mark, choosing Studiotek, the partial angular reflectivity is not something you need to dwell upon. It is more of a consideration for users of Firehawk and other competing products with a greater proportion of angular reflectivity behavior.

WOW! Thanks again Mark, I'm really getting into the physics of this thing. Maybe I missed my calling. So in a word of caution to self, the fact that the Studiotek is more diffusing than reflective, (I know that oversimplifies it alot), implies that ambient light will be equally diffused....oops, and accounts for the fact that angular reflectivity should not be considered an issue, (or less of an issue), with the Studiotek screen. Now I can mount the pj within the Sony specs and be satisfied I did it correctly.

I really appreciate the time and effort you put into answering my questions! In my book you are a Gentleman and a Scholar.

I just wanted to let you know that I order my Stewart Grayhawk RS 83.75"wide here from Jason, from order to delivery It only took 3 days . I order the screen to go with my Samsung 710AE what a perfect match. I was using a Studiotek 130 which worked great with my CRT and the Samsung DLP but I was missing the very deepest blacks with the DLP. With the Grayhawk RS I now have the blacks and the great colors I had with the Studiotek.

I just wanted to say thanks for all the info you post here and thank everybody and Stewart for making a great product and great customer service . Thanks again.

To Stewart: How do I go about getting a piece of Firehawk screen to compare to the DNP screen. I just got a DNP a few days ago and while the image is bright with ambient light I am seeing a rather "grainy" looking image with noticeable hot spots.

To Stewart: How do I go about getting a piece of Firehawk screen to compare to the DNP screen. I just got a DNP a few days ago and while the image is bright with ambient light I am seeing a rather "grainy" looking image with noticeable hot spots.

thanks
arlie

I requested screen samples from Stewart via their website and received them a few weeks later. It took longer than the other screen companies -- but the samples were 3 or 4 times as large as what anyone else sent me. (I think they were waiting until they had large scraps, perhaps?)

I will let you know what the comparsion is when I get a sample from Stewart. I did just go to their website and sent a request to comments@stewartfilm.com. That was the only email addr I found on the site.